degrassifandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Zoë Rivas/@comment-25290273-20150110221609/@comment-3575890-20150111050654
^ "Apologism (via Wikitionary): a defense or excuse, a speech or written answer in justification of anyone." I don't justify Zoe's behavior as I've explained countless times. Allow me to narrow it down into fragmented speech that might actually stick - I do not condone it. I do not approve of it. I do not justify it. I do not declare it free of culpability and responsibility. I simply understand where she is coming from in the decision making process of her unethical choices based on the fact that the root of those choices are connected with her rape. According to this definition, my use of "apologism" was not wrong. It corroborates my use because I claimed that I was tired of hearing "dry, 'excuse' defenses attempting to absolve Zoe...," ''' And in this vein, you missed my point entirely, which is that there is not a single soul on this messageboard that has attempted to absolve Zoe or has shown tolerance for her behavior. If you would simply take a gander down below and a few pages back you would see that nobody here is saying she isn't responsible for her decisions or isn't in the wrong. We are simply saying we ACKNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTAND the headspace in where her actions derive and that they add a layer of complexity that allow for some sympathy and understanding from our end. My main contention was that having an understanding of the psychology behind a character's actions and sympathizing with them for it is not the same as condoning the actions themselves. That is literally all I have been saying the whole while you have taken every sentence I've said and bastardized it out of context. If you want to nitpick at vocablary useage, two can certainly play at that game. '''condone - to forgive or approve (something that is considered wrong): to allow (something that is considered wrong) to continue As I and many others here have prefaced our posts with time and time again, I do not approve of Zoe's actions "Unlike you, I didn't assume that you didn't know what you were talking about until I had facts to prove it, but the rest of your response gives me plenty of reason to believe that you have not only distorted the meaning of what I said, but also did so because you failed to understand it from the beginning (as I shall proceed to prove)." Actually, as I've already pointed out, you failed to understand where I was coming from in my very first point I made. If anybody is continually distorting the meaning of what their opposition has said, it is YOU with MY words. "You claim that what you and other Zoe-supporters are doing ("understanding and sympathizing with" her behavior as a result of the ordeal) is not the same as condoning her behavior (like I claimed it was) because what you are doing (according to yourself) does not "absolve" her of anything. But then, in nearly the very next block of your reply, you imply that she should not be held accountable for her behavior because her rape has "rewired her brain circuits" in a manner that "affects her perception of relationships." I'm sorry, can you point me to the passage wherein I ever expressly said that the following mitigating factors make it so that Zoe should not be held accountable for her actions? All I was saying is that there is no right nor wrong way to react in the aftermath of a traumatic ordeal such as the one that Zoe has been through, that her actions are coming from a place of instability, and that we all could be a little more mindful of that. Yet again, I was simply outlining reasons that I empathize with Zoe in spite of my disapproval of her behavior rather than just outright vilifying her without weighing the factors that make this situation less black and white. "In case you are unaware, acknowledging her wrong behavior and then supplying a reason for it that erases her culpability immediately afterward is "apologizing" (in the sense of the word that's actually supported by a dictionary reference, above). Showing compassion without absolving an individual may extenuate the person, but it only does that." In case you are aware, in order for it to be apologism right down to its definition, I would have to genuinely believe that Zoe should be free of all accountability, believe her actions to be excusable and/or morally acceptable, and explicitly say so, but I do not have those convictions and have never once vocalized approval of any of that. In fact, I have expressly said just the opposite in almost all of my posts. Addressing the factors to EXPLAIN my reasoning for why I empathize with Zoe despite that her actions go against my ethical principles does not mean I advocate erasure of Zoe's culpability. You literally just pulled that out of your rectum. "If you are going to assert that her "traumatizing ordeal" has "rewired her brain circuits" in "ways that affect her perception of relationships," you must THEN amend that you think her actions toward the others are not acceptable IF you truly wish to prevent your justifications from being interpreted as "apologisms." Only I already prefaced my previous post as well as EVERY OTHER POST I have made in this thread with a disclaimer that I don't consider Zoe's behavior to be remotely socially or ethically acceptable for the sole reason, most ironically, of avoiding dead-end arguments with cherry-picking, selective comprehension-suffering people like you: "The way she is behaving now is her way of coping with her rape. '''It's not healthy and it's not ethical', but it is how SHE is dealing with it. You don't have to like it. I don't like it any more than you do."'' "If I were sincerely the asshole you implied me to be, I would illustrate to you exactly how your line of reasoning violates a serious ethical principle by pointing out that as a corollary, YOU are suggesting it is okay for Zoe to be mendacious and manipulative because her rape "rewired her perception of relationships." But since I suspect that you don't want the stigma of that observtion attached to your position, I won't argue against HER behavior any further." It baffles me how you can take an assertion of mine so out of context to the point where the meaning is completely lost. I literally never said any of that. You are taking my words and twisting them out of context to give the impression that I condone Zoe's behavior when I have attested time and time again - if not only in my previous post, but ALL of them - that I do not. Do I need to hold up a billboard with flashing neon lights that say as much for that to sink in? Of course, your putting words I never expressly said into my mouth doesn't stop just there either - when on earth did I ever insinuate that you are an asshole? I was nothing but civilized to you, so I would appreciate if you did not paint me with that kind of brush, thank you. "Yes, her behavior IS realistic, and as an expression of art, I applaud Degrassi for remaining true to that. However, there is (yet another difference) between appreciating art as art and appreciating art for what it conveys about the world. I do not applaud the behavior (nor its justification) as a principle of the way we should comport ourselves." If you understood a word of what I've literally been saying this entire time, you would realize that we are in complete agreement on this matter. Once again, you jump to conclusions based on presumptuous assessments of my character that hold no water for the point I have made over and over again, which is that I do not remotely applaud in any shape or form Zoe's atrocious behavior, to sail over your head. "If you assert that it is, in principle, okay for her to deal with it in ways that harm others (as well as herself) just because she has suffered from a rape some months before, should we then proceed to apply your same principle to real-world individuals experiencing similar trauma who distribute illegal images for money, jeopardize his co-conspirators, and falsely incriminate others when the libel is likely to cause damage to the person's livelihood? The courts would decide otherwise, but the theme I presume that you're missing is that no one action justifies (or necessitates) another merely on the basis that a past wrong has been endured (when the people being afflicted ''don't''deserve the treatment)." You are imaginative and sure can concoct one hell of a straw argument, I'll give you that, but I have never in any of my posts ever asserted that, so your long-winded spiel about me repping some unapplicable legal defence on Zoe's behalf is a moot point in this argument. Never once did I say that Zoe's actions are okay and socially acceptable behavior. Once again, you have invented that idea out of your, what I am inclined at this point to believe, inherently presumptuous nature. Although I would like to point out, in the hypothetical situation that Zoe is taken to court for her wrongdoings, considering the abundance of mitigating factors surrounding her actions ON TOP of the fact that Zoe is protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the courts would likely throw out the case. "Unless you can demonstrate that Zoe's rape necessitated shitty behavior (in a manner that renders suitable alternatives infeasible), waived her of responsibility for her actions, and eliminated an obligation to other human beings to treat them respectfully (in an irrefutable manner), then you are "apologizing" (rather inadequately) for her behavior." Necessitated - no. There is never necessity for such behavior. But rendered easier to understand than if there weren't a plethora of mitiagating factors that garner my sympathy personally? Yes. Andddd we're back to square one. I really don't know how else I can put this for you to understand, but I will try nonetheless: just because I acknowledge and point out that Zoe's behavior isn't without substantial explanation and that in that vein, I understand where she is coming from,'' consider her behavior to be realistic in line with common symptoms of rape trauma syndrome, address the psychological and mental effects that rape can have on a person's psyche, and have synpathy for her based on the aforementioned factors I just mapped out for you, does not mean that I am apologizing for that behavior, suggesting she is free of culpability, trivializing the injurious nature of her actions, or advocating continuance of those actions and behavior.'' @Elle Thank you for having my back! <3